From mathew@kerala.mti.sgi.com Tue Aug 13 19:11:17 1996 Return-Path: mathew@kerala.mti.sgi.com Received: from sgi.sgi.com (SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by aramis.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq+grosshack/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA11762 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:11:15 -0400 Received: from odin.corp.sgi.com (odin.corp.sgi.com [192.26.51.194]) by sgi.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id QAA07695 for <@external-mail-relay.sgi.com:christian-request@cs.rutgers.edu>; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:11:13 -0700 Received: from cardboard.mti.sgi.com by odin.corp.sgi.com via ESMTP (951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1042/951211.SGI) for <@fddi-odin.corp.sgi.com:christian-request@cs.rutgers.edu> id QAA08631; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:11:12 -0700 Received: from kerala.mti.sgi.com by cardboard.mti.sgi.com via ESMTP (950413.SGI.8.6.12/930416.SGI.AUTO-MTI) for <@cardboard.mti.sgi.com:christian-request@cs.rutgers.edu> id QAA02239; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:11:11 -0700 Received: by kerala.mti.sgi.com (940816.SGI.8.6.9/911001.SGI) for christian-request@cs.rutgers.edu id QAA28741; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:02:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199608132302.QAA28741@kerala.mti.sgi.com> Subject: infant baptism faq To: christian-request@cs.rutgers.edu Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:02:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ben Mathew" Reply-To: "Ben Mathew" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 14597 hi, i've written a document regarding infant baptism after some discussions with friends, reading, etc. if you are interested, you could include it into the s.r.c faq. it might need some work still, but i think it's in a state where others can give me feedback on it and i can add to it later... thanks! BAPTISM ------- What it is: ----------- Children of believers are baptized by the faith of the church and his/her parents while they are infants, to include the child in the new covenant. This is a seal of the new covenant, reflecting God's grace. People that are old enough to understand the Gospel and have accepted Christ as their Saviour are baptized as adults, if they were not baptized as infants by faith of believing parents. It signifies death with Christ (Rom 6:3ff, Col 2:12) and union with Christ (Gal 3:27). It is also just plain old obedience to God's command. What it isn't: -------------- It isn't a sign that you believe (that Christ is your Saviour). If so, all the people that were baptized while Jesus was alive had to be re-baptized after the resurrection. Scripture does not indicate this. It isn't a trophy indicating that "I believed, so now I deserve salvation." There is no Scriptural basis for it to be a sign that we have believed. The reason for the confusion is that the detailed portions of the New Testament primarily describes the first generation new converts, and then only the adults. It's important to pay attention to what Scripture says, but, in many cases, it is also important to examine what Scripture DOES NOT say. Also, keep in mind the intended audience. Reasons backing infant baptism: KINGDOM OF GOD BELONG TO CHILDREN: ---------------------------------- In Mark 10:14-15, Jesus says that the kingdom of God belongs to those that are like the children. We can argue about the implications regarding Jesus' statements, but we can draw some reasonable conclusions from the episode. First of all, we are required to be baptized, to receive (the kingdom of) God. Jesus says the kingdom belongs to the childlike. So, how is it possible that the model of those that will receive the kingdom (children) cannot fulfil the requirement necessary for it? We must conclude that baptism is surely permitted for children. CIRCUMCISION <=> BAPTISM: ------------------------- We realize that most New Testament teachings/practices are tied in strongly with Old Testament ones. The ritual of circumcision was instituted by God as the sign of his covenant with Abraham. It was intended to be an everlasting covenant, and the sign was to be applied to every male that was to be included in the covenant. The sign was to be applied to children eight days old, as a mark of initiation into the covenant, assuming the child was from a family included in the covenant. As an adult, one who converted to Judaism was circumcised at that time. So the child was circumcised, based on the faith of his PARENTS. It didn't matter that the child was not a believer at the time. He was included in the covenant with God after circumcision. Now he must grow into being a Jew himself. According to Deuteronomy 10:12-16, something had to happen to make that child a child of God in heart as well as title. His heart had to be circumcised as well. And he couldn't do it himself. As per Jeremiah 4, this had to happen in order for the covenant to be fulfilled in the individual. The child was promised an inheritance in circumcision; he had to become circumcised in heart to ultimately claim the inheritance. In Col 2:11-12, baptism is compared to circumcision in detail. Whether as a child or as an adult, you had to be baptized both in water and in the Spirit to be born again. The order is not given any importance. Col 2:11 "In Him you were circumcised, in a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;" [This implies that we were circumcised by Him. It is a spiritual circumcision, instead of just an outward symbol. Notice transition in next verse connecting circumcision and baptism.] Col 2:12 "having been buried with Him in BAPTISM, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead." The theme in verse 11 is circumcision, and in verse 12, it's baptism. Paul nicely connects them together. If circumcision is the mark of initiation of a person into the old covenant, baptism is definitely the mark of initiation into the new covenant. Baptism is analogous to circumcision in the new covenant. Baptism by itself does not have any effect. There must be belief involved. The baptism of an infant will only be useful if he professes his faith in Jesus once he is old enough. Correspondingly, Esau and Ishmael were circumcised, but it did them no good. Also, note that the thief on the cross was not baptized, but he went to be with Christ. However, this does not reduce the necessity of baptism. Scripture is clear that baptism is important because it is the *instrument* that saves people, according to 1 Peter 3:20-22. But some may argue that baptism and circumcision are different since circumcision automatically puts males into the covenant and baptism does not automatically put anyone into the covenant. But Paul himself, in Romans 9, implies that the outward circumcision does not make one a Jew. This same reason carries over into baptism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Church history: --------------- In AD 215, the Roman theologian Hippolytus states that children are to be baptized. There does not seem to be a doubt in his mind that this was what the apostles had intended. Also, the church father Origen was born in AD 185. He believed that infant baptism was an apostolic practice. For the establishment of this belief, he surely must have been baptized as an infant. Where did his parents get the idea of infant baptism? This takes us back into the Christian century, which is a good indication that the apostles established infant baptism. No one in the Church's first 1500 year history raised a voice against infant baptism. The only one even close was Tertullian (AD 160-220). He does not say anywhere that infant baptism was not derived from apostolic teachings. Instead, he only says that infant baptism should be postponed because it imposes too great a responsibility on the godparents. He argues that the godparents may die and not be able to fulfill their obligations. It is interesting that he prescribes this same baptismal procedure for unmarried young adults and widows. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Importance of the family: ------------------------- In the early times (Christ's time), the family was the unit. Parents did what they believed was right for the children (e.g. circumcision). Now, if Christ or His apostles had intended there to be a RADICAL change where the family was no longer an entity but it was everyone for himself, don't you think there would be at least one mention of it in the Scriptures? If a parent's faith had no value (contrary to the institution of circumcision), wouldn't it be mentioned in the gospels or the epistles or letters? If God had truly intended there to be a radical departure from Jewish practices, there would have been mention of that somewhere in the Bible. If the family is unimportant, I Cor. 7:14 is meaningless. 1 Peter 3:20-22 stresses the importance of family. Noah and his family were saved because of Noah's belief. In addition, we know that the Jewish practice of proselyte baptism included infants (see below). If the Christian practice of baptism was intended to be different, surely there would be some mention of it in the Scriptures. The reason that there is no mention specifically of infants being baptized in the Bible is because the practice was obvious to the people during the time. It followed because God had intended for baptism to replace circumcision as the sign of the new covenant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- How infant baptism reflects what Jesus has done for us: ------------------------------------------------------- Jesus associates baptism with His death, e.g. Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50. Mark 10:38: "But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" Therefore Jesus' death fulfills the Baptism that he is speaking about. This is offered independent of the faith of the people benefiting from it. It occurred regardless of what anyone believes, and is due to God's grace. Once a person believes and accepts what Jesus has done, he is saved. If a person does not accept Jesus' sacrifice, His death (Baptism) was useless for that person. Likewise, with baptism, infants are baptized w/o their faith. It is the parents' and church's faith, as with circumcision, that the child is baptized. Later in life, if the grown child accepts what was done, he is saved. If he rejects the baptism, the baptism was useless. So, in agreement with I Cor 7:14, children can be "sanctified" through the faith of believing parents. Note that 1 Pet 3:21 emphasizes the future after baptism ("pledge of good conscience"), rather than the past. Therefore, baptism is not just a symbol of something that happened in the past (accepting Christ as Saviour). If an adult becomes a believer, he is baptized as an adult. He must still believe after the fact; otherwise the baptism is useless. Baptism does not save anyone. If one argues that not all infants that are baptized later become Christians, this adds no bearing to their stance since there are adults that are baptized and then later reject Christ. Even in the New Testament, there are cases where people (adults, in this case) were baptized, but were later headed towards damnation. For example, Simon Magnus (Acts 8:13-23) and some of the Corinthians (I Cor. 10:1-6). Similarly in the Old Testament, Esau and Ishmael were circumcised, but it was useless. Infant baptism reflects the message of the gospel. The primary reason we are saved is grace; faith is relatively secondary. Baptism is the mark of God's prior love to us, which comes before our response. It is God's love that calls forth our response. Baptism is not a witness to faith but is the witness to grace. The infant baptist side more closely resembles what God has done for us. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baptism of children of adult believers: --------------------------------------- There are verses in the Bible where whole households/families are baptized. Now, what makes up a "family" and a "household" can be debated, but most people would tend to agree that children are involved in this definition. There is no direct evidence that children were involved, but there is no indication that they *weren't* involved either. Likewise in Acts where 3000 were baptized in one day, there were bound to be some children who were baptized as soon as their parents believed. But again, we cannot be sure. Since in early NT times, most new Christians were converts from Judaism. Therefore, most occurrences of baptism mentioned in the Scriptures deal with adults being baptized. Passages stating something to the effect of "believe and be baptized" are addressed to adults, of course. It does not indicate an order, in the same way that the passage about the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20) does not indicate the following order: (1.) go to all nations and (2.) baptize them (3.) teach them. If this passage were to be taken as one that dictates an order, it would support infant baptism, since baptism comes before teaching. Keep in mind that Christianity did not create the idea of baptism; it was borrowed from Judaism, and most likely, the apostles kept similar ideas as in proselyte baptism (otherwise, it would have been noted in the NT). Now let us make a distinction between children of believing parents and children of non-believers. It was Jewish teachings that when a family converted to Judaism, the infants were baptized as well. But if children were born after the parents' conversion, the children were not baptized (males were just circumcised). They were considered sanctified due to their parents (agreeing with I Cor. 7:14.) Therefore, there was this distinction during the time of Christ. Noting this, we can say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO indication of children of believing parents being baptized in the Bible. Adult baptism proponents believe that adult children of believing parents should be baptized also, which has NO Scriptural basis. So, even though there is only fuzzy evidence of non-believers' children being baptized in the Bible, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that adult children of believing parents are baptized. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baptism by Immersion: --------------------- Baptism does not necessarily imply immersion, as the Greek translates to "wash" in the general sense. "Immersion" and "moistening a part of the body" are both special cases of the Greek word. Many argue that babies cannot be immersed, so they should not be baptized. But there is Scriptural evidence that not all baptisms were done by immersion. For example, when Paul baptized the jailer, Scripture implies that he was baptized before they reached his home. It says that he and his family were baptized *immediately*. Now where would there be enough water to immerse them in a prison? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Final Thoughts: --------------- We are commanded to be baptized, but since there are no exact rules laid down in Scripture, we should read the Word and ask for God's guidance in this matter. Whatever ways that you feel the Holy Spirit is leading you, if you are staying within Scriptural bounds, God will be merciful. If God had intended this to be a matter of high importance, He would have made clear what we should do - in the same manner that He has clearly shown us how to receive salvation. Selected References: -------------------- [1] "Baptism," Michael Green, Intervarsity Press, 1987. [2] "Baptism in the New Testament," Oscar Cullman, 1950. (Compiled by Ben Mathew (b.mathew@ieee.org) from various sources.)